I know that it has a different role in the USA. I do not care.
How would M10 Booker perform as a replacement for the latest T-80 and T-90 tanks? Both M10 and T-series tanks are in the same weight class. Does anyone know how they compare in length/width/height?
>How would M10 Booker perform as a replacement for the latest T-80 and T-90 tanks?
Terribly.
>how would M10 Booker perform as a replacement for the latest T-80 and T-90 tanks
It would not, because as you mentioned, it's a different role.
>Both M10 and T-series tanks are in the same weight class.
No they are not. The M10 is 38 metric tons with an unknown amount of armor. The T80BVM and T90A are pushing nearly 50 metric tons thanks to the addition of even more ERA, Relikt, K5, and Cope Cage armor.
These vehicles are intended to support IBCTs, simple as. They're not tanks.
M10 is 42t and T-90 is 46t
>measures in US tons, then metric
here, for you:
No, we don't know how heavily armored the M10 is. The armor is classified. It could be capable of eating 100mm, or it might only be capable of deflecting 30mm. We won't know for a long time because it just came out.
even still you lied first. neither T-80 and T-90 are pushing 50 metric t. T-80 for example is only 42t which is the same difference between your 38t figure as between T-80 and T-90. They're all roughly within the same weight class with similar main features (tracks, big gun, armor). its completely normal to wonder how it would work as an mbt
yeah the OG T80 (1979)
The BVM is 48 metric tons
So the M10 is fcked if it gets hit by anything above 30 mm
>reddit autist is incapable of creative thinking
do color me surprised. the question is not if it will be used in a russian doctrine style mbt role. it is a what if. try to imagine the smo with M10 booker instead of T-80/90, ask yourself how it would fare
>reddit
>smo
abandon thread
reddit, troony, holhol, ukrop
didnt even try to not be a zigger homosexual did ya.
let me guess you read the REAL news because you know the MSM lies to you all the time and know whats really going on.
no if you want to know it so bad Im delighted about dumb slavBlack folk killing themselves. I support my government in funding the onslaught and I hope more hohols and vatniks die for years to come. reddit /k/opers should stay on reddit and cum/chug/gers in their discord channels. this is not a hohol war thread though. frick off
>Both M10 and T-series tanks are in the same weight class.
But the M10 doesn't have
>MBT-class gun (120+mm)
>MBT-class armor
It's a tank, but it's too lightly armored and armed to serve as a stand-in for a modern MBT in the anti-tank role.
It could replace the T-80 for plinking away at mobiks in trenches, that's its job, but not in the ToE of tank divisions that are expected to actively seek out and engage enemy armor with reasonably high probability.
>They're not tanks.
They are tanks you utter shithead. Plenty of tanks have existed and been used that were never intended to do anything other than support infantry units.
If it looks like a tank infantry will use it as a tank, this has always been true and was the reason tank destroyers were folded into tanks to begin with. Repeating "it's an assault gun" over and over won't make anti-tank missiles ignore it.
>If it looks like a tank infantry will use it as a tank,
Thats the point. This exists so infantry units will stop stealing M1s from armored divisions like they did habitually in Afghanistan.
>they are not tanks
Yes they are. What they aren't is MBTs. It's like complaining Scorpions, Scimitars and so forth aren't tanks but the only real criteria to be a tank is armoured and tracked. Everything else is just a role designation for said tank. Otherwise would you not consider anything before 1976 to be an MBT since before that point, tanks were woefully underprotected compared to Chobham and undergunned compared to the 120mm.
No idea. For all we know, it could be using a lighter version of the composite in the M1 Abrams and proof against 105mm. 42 tonnes is about the weight the T-72 was in the 70s and barely any different to the Type 10 that Japan has.
I'd assume at the bare minimum it's autocannon immune upto 57mm since it's still meant to be the primary fire support for other mobile units and you don't want a big gun, even if its smaller, to be on a platform that dies to stray 30mm.
I'd expect at least frontal arc immunity to anything short of an MBT gun, of any era, and then rear/side immunity to 14.5mm.
>lighter version of the composite in the M1 Abrams and proof against 105mm
The composite known as High hardness steel bolted on top of aluminium base just like the Bradley?.
That aint stopping anything more serious then 30mm.
The stupidity of the design is enhanced by how the turret cheeks are clearly cosmetic sheet metal to protect the smoke grenade launcher mounts
Idk I don't think it's intended to be armored against anything large enough to require a vehicle mount. 14.5mm and 23mm are probably the extent of it since those exist in AMRs and HMGs which might be manhandled into position.
The HEAT armor is the question. It probably stops 40mm HEDP and it definitely won't stop a ATGM but is it possible to armor against RPGs?
>but is it possible to armor against RPGs?
Not in any of the pictures we've seen.
To be generous, I guess for the front, since it has to go through the powerpack
There have been no add-on packages yet shown for CE ammunition. The current armor package is innefficent vs HEAT and only good against small KE projectiles. This... is not gonna stop an PG-7V
>MPF air transport weight will not exceed 32t
>must be capable of destroying MBTs
Well, so much for that.
I bet if you send it back to WW1 it would qualify as a tank.
>They're not tanks.
It's an infantry tank
I said this in another thread but, what was the point of all the r+d on the M10 when the CV90120 exists? It just seems like a no brainer to buy it off shelf.
Probably because it doesn't exist, it's a demonstrator only. And the US design requirements wanted something similar to the M1's turret for ease of training for former M1 tankers.
I take it none of you have read the requirements, why the XM8 Buford was disqualified, etc.
>why the XM8 Buford was disqualified
ok tell us. why was it?
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Protected_Firepower
No shit moron. I've read wikis and the news releases. They don't say anything informative as to why, that's why I'm asking you since you claimed to know. Were you just pretending to be smart online?
No, I was not "pretending to be smart online" you insufferable homosexual. I'm tired of seeing every fricking thread on this thing devolve into "why didnt da M8 get selected? Must be da jooooooos!"
>I'm tired of seeing every fricking thread on this thing devolve into "why didnt da M8 get selected?"
>that's why I refuse to tell people explicitly why the M8 got selected
Must've been the israelites.
It's not real, and if it were it probably wouldn't be very good
BAE entered the M8 instead
Because they didn’t enter it into the competition. Ask the company why they chose to enter a different (and losing) design.
First of all Im not a zigger, both sides are equally bad. And second you are just shitposting in a tan/k/ thread. Go find one of a bazillion ukrop threads (only outspokenly pro hohol ones, everything else is banned by trannies ofc)
>dae le both sides?
>oh, and TRANNIES
you're like a parody of yourself
>I'm not a zigger, but muh both sides, muh ukrops, muh hohols, muh trannies
Wow, could've fooled me
sorry you got exposed, just make a new thread and try to be more subtle next time xoxo
>That pic
Someone tell Hoodie Jeans McHatster to get out of the frame. Jesus Christ... who is that and why are they so severely underdressed? Just put on a collared wal mart shirt at least.
Is this the first time an assault gun has been created since WW2?
We've already had the M1128, not that it was very successful.
what is this tanks mission?
blasting "white supremecist extremists" at home?
i dont get it
Blasting hordes of Chinese soldiers with 105mm canister shot and HE. APCs, IFVs, and maybe the occasional MBT too.
>what if
>our air force killed every enemy tank
>but
>we still wanted armor support for our infantry
Plus it's light enough to work in the Pacific.
Dedicated tank support for infantry units. Now tank divisions don't have to give up a few tanks so an infantry unit can have tank support.
So...
an Infantry Tank, one may call it.
Yeah, but the US never really liked that term. I'm surpised they didn't call it aan assault gun. I guess the modern army just can't stand the idea of using the same classification twice.
The US doesn't like the term "light tank" either despite trying to develop one for 40 years and ending up with this.
assault guns had their own designations in WW2 because they operated mixed units
a separate tank battalion had 3 companies of regular M4s and 1 platoon of dedicated assault guns
while the battalion as a whole was used for infantry support, it was still important to make the distinction between "could fight other tanks sometimes" and "could only fight tanks as an emergency"
an M4 with 75mm gun could at leasy hold its own against panzer IVs and stugs, but an M4 with 105mm gun or M8 scott with 75mm gun is basically useless against any enemy tank unless its at point blank
the M10 will be operating in pure M10 battalions, an MPF battalion has 3 MPF companies and a sustainment company and no other combat units, so there is no need to differentiate between assault guns and medium tanks because they are all assault guns
there isnt a need to have hybrid anti-tank/anti-infantry since modern IBCTs have javelins and TOWs, so the M10 can focus purely on anti-infantry
>How would M10 Booker perform as a replacement for the latest T-80 and T-90 tanks?
In the role they're being used for most of the time (direct fire support for infantry, anti-tank SPG), probably fine. In the role of heavily leaned on indirect fire support, like it was fricking Korea or something on the Russian side perhaps less so (bad use of them). For production considerations superior because the 80s & 90s aren't viable to produce in the volume required, hence the mothballed ye olde shit tanks.
>infantry support
Cannon rounds are A LOT cheaper (and faster to engage & frickoff) than the guided missile alternatives lugged around by infantry, and the presence of such a thing creates overmatch problems for the opposing mechanized infantry that doesn't have them and/or actual tanks. Higher elevation angles with more internal space might also make it slightly more suitable for urban stuff (more disposable than an MBT).
The M10 Booker is much lighter and less armored than the T-80 and T-90. They don't serve the same role.
Thing is M10 is not that lighter (38 vs 42) but it completely falls behind in armor protection.
KE 120mm RHA front vs 500 RHA
CE 120mm RHA front vs 1000 RHA (monoblock).
M10 is utter failure of the design and doctrine.
>MBT vs assault gun
Requirements included a turret large enough to have decent elevation and depression, rear ammo bustle, and sufficient internal volume for all crew
The T-90 achieved thick armor at the cost of having the internal space of a tokyo apartment with a gun that has -4 degrees of depression
Since the M10 is operating in small elements dispersed among infantry units, there is no danger of being swarmed by enemy MBTs
>The T-90 achieved thick armor at the cost of having the internal space of a tokyo apartment with a gun that has -4 degrees of depression
Anon, gun rear rises when depressed. To improve T-90 design depression you just need bulge on the top of turret to fit gun if you want such capability
You don't need greathall volumes inside the tank.
>rear ammo bustle
Not much great help in the case of paper thin armor as any AT weapon would just penetrate M10 turret right through including turret bustle doors.
It's Diesel electric right?
For export, best to have Diesel drive train be swapable. So other countries can just buy M-10 and just put engine they want inside.
No, its just a regular turbodiesel
That would actually be innovative and a good idea, so the M10 won't have that.
It's sort of exciting that they're building 500 of them considering how in the toilet western tank production is in general
It's just....so goofy looking. 3D render of proposed vehicle type shit
My favorite poster is back 😀
You are the only one who deserves a trip
an hero
Who is it even theoretically going to fight that won't have masses of ATGMs and now suicide FPV drones with RPG warheads?
knowing israelitemerica it will be an assortment of ricefarmers, goatherders, or some other native and innocent peoples brandished as terrorists after a cia falseflag op
Good thing one of the requirements was that it would be able to mount the APS system that's being developed for the M1, so that's not as much of a concern.
It should be not just have "requirement" is should have one integrated from teh start. Cos trophy is big and heavy and integration of it is not easy. You can run in the big problems and never finish the job.
Its should be done right from the start and trialed with with APS installed to be sure it works IRL not in theory.
I just want my country to procure some, for no reason other then they'd look great alongside scimitars.
why you think usa is stalling the delivery of the abraams anon?
they work on hype and once they start getting btfo'ed its over
very organic rajesh, thank you
why thank you paki
Tank on tank warfare is unironically over. Light tanks will be the new meta for smaller states. We will see mechanized companies made up purely of CV-90 variants.
>roll out even more vulnerable tank
>in the year 2023
>what can go wrong?
Both get busted by a modern ATGM all the same. Better have more mobility instead.
IFV chassis turned into tanks will always be shit vs a dedicated tank chassis that doesn't have the disadvantages like wasted volume.